Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

To those who believe the 911 official story


Zaus

Recommended Posts

As I said, he makes plenty of accusations in the lawsuit, and that completely scuppers your argument that he is scared of the consequencies of speaking out: "Obviously, if you think you're talking to people capable of mass murder, you'll think twice before you implicate them right to their face!"

Wrong. I said he may have been afraid, first off.

Second, I was referring to his private testimony he gave to the 9/11 commission behind closed doors. He mentions explosives in a document (complaint) submitted by an attorney - an entirely different scenario than going solo in a face-to-face "tribunal".

What does appear to be missing is any mention of fireballs in lifts, which was my claim.

So what? Does he specifically deny the existence of a fireball? No. But because he didn't mention the fireball in his complaint, you leap to the feeblest of conclusions, and claim that he is therefore denying it existed?! Come on, get serious. That's the sort of smear tactics Roberts uses all the time. It doesn't work.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • flyingswan

    313

  • Q24

    205

  • turbonium

    180

  • merril

    113

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

There seems to be an endless supply of conspiracy theories regarding 9/11... While I wouldn't put it past our govt, I still can't bring myself to fully believe it was an inside job. Everyone here makes excellent points (as well as on other forums tackling the same topic); maybe i'm just hoping for the best out of a horrible tragedy. :hmm:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing new, the quotes were in my post #351, and the quotes, with their links, are from the top page of Roberts' Rodiguez link, which I've given several times now:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/home

Do you mean that you didn't actually read this the first time I mentioned it? You were certainly very sure that Roberts was wrong, but how did you know if you didn't know what his accusations were?

You're referring back to this, I assume?....

"My story has not changed." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Where is Roberts' source(s) for these quotes?

The quotes are linked, but the link just sends you to another page on Robert's site. And the page doesn't even have those quotes!

I'd like to know where to actually find them, and then I'll comment on it further.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in•de•pend•ent

  1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.
  2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.
  3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.
  4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.
Ah, we're back to the argument that if you actually studied the collapses you're automatically biassed in favour of the government.

You are shifting the goalposts again.

How would you like it if I asked you for anti-"official" structural engineers, then objected to any who are members of AE911Truth because that showed a lack of independence??

My demolition theory involves both conventional shaped explosives to weaken the structure and thermite charges to initiate collapse - they are different devices and may be setup and concealed in different ways without either ‘ruling out’ the other.

Hiding the charges under the spray-on insulation was the only way turbonium could think up for concealing a CD setup. Your thermite set-up couldn't conceivably be hidden in that manner, yet you support turbonium. You are being misleading.

Or simply, “it’s an unconventional controlled demolition because it looks like an unconventional controlled demolition”. That means despite the type and timing of the evident charges being non-conventional, it is given away further by a number of features: sudden initiation, virtual symmetry, near freefall, complete collapses, amongst others.

As your idea of an "unconventional controlled demolition" can look like whatever you want it to, it is hardly any form of evidence. Sudden initiation isn't what happened, both towers showed bowing of the walls before collapse. All the other features you list are also predicted by the engineering analyses of a "natural" collapse.

If it was necessary to bring the penthouse down first, this would require a horizontal separation from the rest of the structure. Even if the penthouse was not necessarily required to be removed first, we know that in a controlled demolition, charges are placed at high levels and can detonate in the seconds before collapse initiates.

You can't have horizontal separation when the penthouse is sitting on the rest of the structure. When did you demonstrate that charges at high level could be fired seconds before the rest?

Yes, it is quite ridiculous that an office fire should imitate the results of that setup.

Try office fire and heavy damage from an aircraft impact.

The observed bowing is nothing more than evidence that some given damage situation will cause as much - that the impacts caused this situation is a preconception. Indeed, NIST’s base case showed that the impact was not cause enough to induce bowing or collapse. Here is how NIST had to extend that expected case to reach the required damage situation: -

“For the more severe case, the
impact speed was increased
to the upper bound obtained from the analysis of aircraft impact conditions, while the aircraft vertical trajectory
angle was reduced to impart more impact energy
inward toward the core. A
5 percent increase in the total aircraft weight
was considered for the more severe case, while the
failure strain was varied to be 125 percent
of the baseline value to inflict more damage on the towers. For the tower model, the
failure strains of the tower steels were reduced to 80 percent
of the baseline value, and the
mass of the building contents was reduced
. These variations contributed to more severe damage to the tower structure, by making the tower structure weaker and the aircraft structure stronger.”

How NIST justified altering so many and so severely the parameters from the base case in one fell swoop is not explained in the report. This severe exaggerated case may have been acceptable, unlikely though it is, in an “oh ok, the impact was just more extreme than our best guess”, kind of way… if the resultant damage had best matched that observed in photographic evidence… but it didn’t: -

“The overall agreement with the observed damage to the north wall was good for the base case and the more severe case,
with the
base case
analysis providing the
better match
to the observed damage.

The two quotes given above are incontrovertible evidence that in increasing the severity of the impact simulation as they did, NIST were moving further away from the observable reality of the situation on 9/11 in their desperate quest to ‘prove’ the official story.

All the factors were changed at once so that they could only run three cases - if each was varied separately you would need hundreds of cases. None of the variables were changed beyond what was consisdered to be the uncertainty in the estimates of the values used for the baseline case. Note that the agreement with the impact damage was still good for the severe case, so the actual impact severity was more than the baseline. The less severe case gave poor agreement. In going from baseline to severe case, NIST were not "moving further away", they were moving towards and beyond the actual impact.

You still do not grasp the significance of the bowing prediction. No-one else has managed to predict the bowing using any other set of circumstances, so the severe case is the only one that fits this aspect of the evidence. It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too. From the way the damage and the bowing are releated, it is clear that the bowing will start at an impact level intermediate between the baseline and severe cases, and such an impact would give a better match to the impact damage than either of the cases run. There is no problem in engineering terms with accepting NIST's conclusion.

I dismiss Gilsanz’ article first and foremost on the basis it is a vague half-theory that explains nothing to any acceptable level. In addition, I point out that he was a member of the FEMA and NIST teams and will be working to the same preconceived conclusions that they are.

You are not qualified to judge how plausible Gilsanz's theory is, and as he has a computational structural model and you don't, I know who I'd put money on.

You keep on about "preconceived conclusions", but if a building is damaged and catches fire, then collapses, the damage and fire are the obvious places to start. If a technical analysis starting from that damage and fire leads to a collapse, then you need to find extra evidence that a CD predicts and the "natural collapse" doesn't before you need to explore CD as a cause. You have yet to find any evidence in this category.

Last you spoke of Gordon Ross and his Momentum Transfer Analysis paper, you agreed that, “his basic calculations agree with B&Z”. After I pointed out Ross had made a number of assumptions in favour of collapse continuation, still demonstrating that the collapse would not continue, you then could only gripe about the quantity of dust reasonably assumed to be pulverised.

He assumed a very large quantity of dust because it was the only thing he could think of to absorb the energy of the collapse. He gave no justification for picking such a large quantity.

The reasoning turbs has set out for the initial demolition of the penthouse is different to my own, though both are very reasonable – there is more than one way a demolition may be carried out. What we both seem to absolutely agree on is that the official story is pure nonsense.

If you cannot come up with a plausible alternative theory which you can agree on, only two mutually incompatible theories, why should I believe either?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually suggesting that this is the one and only way to CD a building? I hope not. There are countless variables, not to mention any cutting edge advancements and techniques kept under wraps.

I'm suggesting that any CD involves a lot of equipment that is difficult to hide, and you have failed to prove otherwise. Magic "cutting edge techniques" like q24's thermite column cutter have to be demonstrated before anyone believes in them, and couldn't be hidden as you suggest in any case.

But the towers were not conventional CD's, and he is not an authority on them. He certainly is qualified to state that the towers were not conventional CD's. And I agree - they were not conventional CD's. He may be certain that the towers were not CD's, but that is only his personal opinion.

He's an authority on conventional CD's - and he is fully qualified to claim with certainty that WTC 7 was a CD.

Now you are going for q24's "It's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's a CD if it doesn't look like a CD". This argument is unfalsifiable, hence worthless.

Implausible theories didn't stop the FEMA and NIST reports from being published without a whimper of complaint from the engineering "community", either. But the FEMA and NIST reports have something else in common with that paper - Ramon Gilsanz took part in writing all of them!

Yes. In fact, NIST hired him to come up with a "plausible theory" for the collapse of WTC 7. There's much more to the story of Ramon Gilsanz, but I won't get into it here.

The main point is that you fail to realize the serious ramifications at play here. It's not a simple case of two engineers with opposing theories for an event, debating over various technical points. It goes far, far beyond that.

If an engineer disputes the NIST / FEMA / Guy who worked for NIST and FEMA/ theories, he is also disputing that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by fire and/or structural damage alone. That implies that other factor(s) were involved in causing the collapse. But there's only one factor that could be considered - explosives.

In a nutshell, he's saying that it was a CD. Which leads to only one horrible conclusion.

There is nothing to gain, and everything to lose, if he speaks out. As you said, it's a "community". Who's going to take a stand against the entire community, when it might cost him his career?

"Implausible" is only your opinion, and you have no structural engineering background, so what is your opinion worth?

Any engineer can check the published papers on the collapses, and I've no doubt that the subject will become part of the education of every future structural engineer. I know that the reasons for past engineering disasters played a part in my own engineering education. I work in the aerospace industry, and I've discussed the collapses with my colleagues. All these engineers can all check for themselves how plausible Gilsanz is. What does an engineer in a different discipline have to lose by speaking out? What does a student engineer planning to go into the financial sector have to lose? How about a retired engineer? An engineer in Iran or China?

Edited by flyingswan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong. I said he may have been afraid, first off.

Second, I was referring to his private testimony he gave to the 9/11 commission behind closed doors. He mentions explosives in a document (complaint) submitted by an attorney - an entirely different scenario than going solo in a face-to-face "tribunal".

He tells his story to everyone in the media who puts a microphone in front of his face, gives public talks about it, but he is scared of the powers that be? You are just quibbling.

So what? Does he specifically deny the existence of a fireball? No. But because he didn't mention the fireball in his complaint, you leap to the feeblest of conclusions, and claim that he is therefore denying it existed?! Come on, get serious. That's the sort of smear tactics Roberts uses all the time. It doesn't work.

If he thought at that point that the fireball had the significance he now attributes to it, he would have included it.

You're referring back to this, I assume?....

"My story has not changed." But, "It is a well known fact that I was believeing the goverment official story early on. As I asked questions and put things together, the whole thing changed from their side and also from mine." Then, "I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Where is Roberts' source(s) for these quotes?

The quotes are linked, but the link just sends you to another page on Robert's site. And the page doesn't even have those quotes!

I suggest that you look a little harder at that second page:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

The middle quote is there, and some close approximations to the other two quotes - "From day one, I have told the same story" and "I always talk about explosion, not bombs". All quotes from Rodriguez on that page are linked to sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He tells his story to everyone in the media who puts a microphone in front of his face, gives public talks about it, but he is scared of the powers that be? You are just quibbling.

If he thought at that point that the fireball had the significance he now attributes to it, he would have included it.

I suggest that you look a little harder at that second page:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

The middle quote is there, and some close approximations to the other two quotes - "From day one, I have told the same story" and "I always talk about explosion, not bombs". All quotes from Rodriguez on that page are linked to sources.

You guy's wouldn't believe the truth unless it punched you directly in the mouth..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an example of some lady trying deliberately to alter a sound track on a 9-11 film.

YouTube has numerous films where kids have increased the audio, to suggest explosive sounds.

It's either idiocy, or some weird agenda, or monetary desire to sell lies to fools willing to part with their money.

For example-

Link1

Link 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that any CD involves a lot of equipment that is difficult to hide, and you have failed to prove otherwise.

I don't need to prove that the charges would be "difficult" to hide. The only relevant point is that the charges could have been hidden. Whether or not that would have been difficult to do makes no difference.

Now you are going for q24's "It's a CD if it looks like a CD and it's a CD if it doesn't look like a CD". This argument is unfalsifiable, hence worthless.

You're missing the point. To correctly revise your quote: "It's a conventional CD if it looks like a conventional CD and it's an unconventional CD if it looks like an unconventional CD".

In other words, they both look like CD's. The only distinction is the method of CD.

"Implausible" is only your opinion, and you have no structural engineering background, so what is your opinion worth?

More than someone who displays no evidence of even having a structural engineering background, that's for sure.

Any engineer can check the published papers on the collapses, and I've no doubt that the subject will become part of the education of every future structural engineer. I know that the reasons for past engineering disasters played a part in my own engineering education. I work in the aerospace industry, and I've discussed the collapses with my colleagues. All these engineers can all check for themselves how plausible Gilsanz is. What does an engineer in a different discipline have to lose by speaking out? What does a student engineer planning to go into the financial sector have to lose? How about a retired engineer? An engineer in Iran or China?

First of all, my point was to explain why it may be difficult for those within the engineering community to speak out. I didn't say that none of them had spoken out. I'm quite sure you realize that there are qualified engineers speaking out against the NIST theories, don't you? There are websites specifically devoted to disputing the official account of collapse(s), which have an ever-increasing membership of qualified professionals.

You must be aware of such sites as this?...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

They currently have 317 architectural and engineering professionals who have signed a petition, demanding that Congress initiate a new, fully independent investigation.

So that settles your contention that there are no engineers speaking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I haven't read through all of the above posts. Lemme tell you something. I think in terms of probability. Remember probability? Probability is the damnest thing. You start with the probability of A happening, and then multiply that by the probability of B happening.

Here we go. A group of well-trained and devoted terrorists use (we don't know which) foreign power to forge passport documents that pass United States security. Probability of that? maybe 1 in (however many tourists or immigrants enter the U.S. in a given year).

Said terrorists purchase training to fly Jumbo Jet aircraft. Well, they entered the U.S. and were resident students or whatever. Maybe 1 in 1000.

Somehow, they gained expertise in materials engineering to the point that they knew that the flash point of jet fuel would melt the particular type of steel used in WTC. Well, probability that Osama bin Laden recruited material science specialists or had the engineering background to "know" or train this type of knowledge: maybe 1 in 100,000.

That the FBI did not recognize the potential (and don't BS me about FBI's mission is to investigate for U.S. domestic state and federal criminal law...) - or CIA for that matter (and I put U.S. intel above Mossad - maybe Mossad ruled in the 1970's but not post-Reagan) 1 in 300,000,000 (about the population of the U.S.) God knows NSA computers track all our internet traffic and phone calls as it is.

So, we have 1 in a million X 1 in a thousand X 1 in a hundred thousand X 1 in three hundred million.

Of course these numbers are unqualified as I am writing this off the cuff. But, just use the probabilities.

Is it possible that a group of fifteen or so terrorists entered the U.S. and lived underground for 3 to 5 years undetected with a mission to destroy WTC? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? Probably not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need to prove that the charges would be "difficult" to hide. The only relevant point is that the charges could have been hidden. Whether or not that would have been difficult to do makes no difference.

To have a case, you need to show that it would have been possible to hide a CD set-up taking months to prepare without any risk of the building staff noticing anything suspicious. All you have so far is an unqualified opinion.

You're missing the point. To correctly revise your quote: "It's a conventional CD if it looks like a conventional CD and it's an unconventional CD if it looks like an unconventional CD".

In other words, they both look like CD's. The only distinction is the method of CD.

As no-one on your side of the argument seems able to agree on what an unconventional CD would actually involve, this does not help your case. All I can see is people picking on each little aspect that they don't understand and weaving some piece of speculation around it. The trouble is, these bits of speculation do not join together to make a consistent story. A typical example is you proposing very small HE charges that are easily hidden, while q24 goes for very big thermite charges to explain the molten cascade down WTC2. HE doesn't explain the cascade, large thermite charges can't be hidden under the spray-on insulation. Until the proponents of unconventional CD can agree on what unconventional CD actually is, my characterisation of it as anything that doesn't look like a conventional CD seems pretty accurate.

More than someone who displays no evidence of even having a structural engineering background, that's for sure.

I'm an aerospace engineer, but I had a general engineering education that included structures.

First of all, my point was to explain why it may be difficult for those within the engineering community to speak out. I didn't say that none of them had spoken out. I'm quite sure you realize that there are qualified engineers speaking out against the NIST theories, don't you? There are websites specifically devoted to disputing the official account of collapse(s), which have an ever-increasing membership of qualified professionals.

You must be aware of such sites as this?...

http://www.ae911truth.org/

They currently have 317 architectural and engineering professionals who have signed a petition, demanding that Congress initiate a new, fully independent investigation.

So that settles your contention that there are no engineers speaking out.

Er, it was your contention that there are no engineers speaking out, not mine. I said that most engineers accept the official story, you claimed that they only said that because they couldn't speak out: "Who's going to take a stand against the entire community, when it might cost him his career?" You are arguing with yourself here.

As to AE911Truth, if you check out the thread on that, you will see that they do not check if their members actually hold the qualifications they claim, and some of the statements those members make raise considerable doubts. The "disputing the official account" by this organisation is curiously based almost entirely on quoting the ususal conspiracist arguments rather than publishing technical rebuttals to the papers that explain the collapses.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6598&st=150

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I haven't read through all of the above posts. Lemme tell you something. I think in terms of probability. Remember probability? Probability is the damnest thing. You start with the probability of A happening, and then multiply that by the probability of B happening.

Here we go. A group of well-trained and devoted terrorists use (we don't know which) foreign power to forge passport documents that pass United States security. Probability of that? maybe 1 in (however many tourists or immigrants enter the U.S. in a given year).

You seriously believe that only one fake passport gets past US immigration each year?

Said terrorists purchase training to fly Jumbo Jet aircraft. Well, they entered the U.S. and were resident students or whatever. Maybe 1 in 1000.

What's to stop apparantly legal residents with the money enrolling in flight school? Try 1 in 1 for this.

Somehow, they gained expertise in materials engineering to the point that they knew that the flash point of jet fuel would melt the particular type of steel used in WTC. Well, probability that Osama bin Laden recruited material science specialists or had the engineering background to "know" or train this type of knowledge: maybe 1 in 100,000.

Completely irrelevent. First, there is no evidence that they planned for anything beyond the aircraft hitting the buildings. Second, the collapse mechanism didn't involve steel melting.

That the FBI did not recognize the potential (and don't BS me about FBI's mission is to investigate for U.S. domestic state and federal criminal law...) - or CIA for that matter (and I put U.S. intel above Mossad - maybe Mossad ruled in the 1970's but not post-Reagan) 1 in 300,000,000 (about the population of the U.S.) God knows NSA computers track all our internet traffic and phone calls as it is.

Seeing that crimes do occasionally occur, even in the US, I think you overestimate the prowess of the FBI and the intelligence services.

So, we have 1 in a million X 1 in a thousand X 1 in a hundred thousand X 1 in three hundred million.

Of course these numbers are unqualified as I am writing this off the cuff. But, just use the probabilities.

Is it possible that a group of fifteen or so terrorists entered the U.S. and lived underground for 3 to 5 years undetected with a mission to destroy WTC? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? Probably not...

In other words, if you make up a lot of big numbers, you get even bigger numbers if you multiply them together. Surprising

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He tells his story to everyone in the media who puts a microphone in front of his face, gives public talks about it, but he is scared of the powers that be? You are just quibbling.

No, you are just quibbling. How many times do I have to tell you - I said he may have been too scared to mention explosives. But it's a totally irrelevant matter anyway, so stop quibbling about it.

If he thought at that point that the fireball had the significance he now attributes to it, he would have included it.

Amazing logic. It seems you don't even know what your actual argument is. Or, maybe you do know what your argument is, but you can't understand the fact that your examples don't support your argument.

Rodriguez said nothing about the fireball in his complaint. That does not mean he denied its existence. You assume he "would have included it" if he thought it existed. That's simply your opinion. You run off with that opinion as if it's a proven fact, and make a nonsense conclusion.

It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it.

I suggest that you look a little harder at that second page:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

The middle quote is there, and some close approximations to the other two quotes - "From day one, I have told the same story" and "I always talk about explosion, not bombs". All quotes from Rodriguez on that page are linked to sources.

Excuse me? There are "some close approximations"?? I asked you for source(s) for the actual quotes you posted -not "close approximations" of them.

Roberts (and you) claim this to be a DIRECT quote from Rodriguez...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

I asked you for a source for that quote. Apparently, YOU DON'T HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE. You just give me this quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

This is NOT a "close approximation". And even if it was, that wouldn't excuse what you and Roberts are doing.

So far, I know that you and Roberts are guilty of not providing a source for this quote...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

(That's bad enough, especially since you and Roberts are the ones trying to make your whole case by picking away at Rodriguez' quotes!)

I also know that you are unable to provide a source for this quote.

And now, I'd like to know this - exactly WHY are you unable to provide a source for this quote?

Is it because Roberts made it up?

I told you that Roberts was spewing out nonsense. It appears that you're quite happy to just keep on regurgitating it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You seriously believe that only one fake passport gets past US immigration each year?

What's to stop apparantly legal residents with the money enrolling in flight school? Try 1 in 1 for this.

Completely irrelevent. First, there is no evidence that they planned for anything beyond the aircraft hitting the buildings. Second, the collapse mechanism didn't involve steel melting.

Seeing that crimes do occasionally occur, even in the US, I think you overestimate the prowess of the FBI and the intelligence services.

In other words, if you make up a lot of big numbers, you get even bigger numbers if you multiply them together. Surprising

I had said that the numbers were off the cuff. Can you proceed with a more objective probability scenario? I'm having dinner now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you are just quibbling. How many times do I have to tell you - I said he may have been too scared to mention explosives. But it's a totally irrelevant matter anyway, so stop quibbling about it.

Rodriguez himself says he mentioned explosives to the 9/11 Commission:

http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/arti...18131/28031.htm

Amazing logic. It seems you don't even know what your actual argument is. Or, maybe you do know what your argument is, but you can't understand the fact that your examples don't support your argument.

Rodriguez said nothing about the fireball in his complaint. That does not mean he denied its existence. You assume he "would have included it" if he thought it existed. That's simply your opinion. You run off with that opinion as if it's a proven fact, and make a nonsense conclusion.

It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it.

Quibble as much as you like, there is plenty of evidence of Rodriguez contradicting himself:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

Excuse me? There are "some close approximations"?? I asked you for source(s) for the actual quotes you posted -not "close approximations" of them.

Roberts (and you) claim this to be a DIRECT quote from Rodriguez...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

I asked you for a source for that quote. Apparently, YOU DON'T HAVE A SOURCE FOR THAT QUOTE. You just give me this quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

This is NOT a "close approximation". And even if it was, that wouldn't excuse what you and Roberts are doing.

So far, I know that you and Roberts are guilty of not providing a source for this quote...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

(That's bad enough, especially since you and Roberts are the ones trying to make your whole case by picking away at Rodriguez' quotes!)

I also know that you are unable to provide a source for this quote.

And now, I'd like to know this - exactly WHY are you unable to provide a source for this quote?

Is it because Roberts made it up?

I told you that Roberts was spewing out nonsense. It appears that you're quite happy to just keep on regurgitating it.

Roberts appears to have paraphrased Rodriguez' statement, but I don't see that he has altered its meaning. In any case, Roberts' link from the papaphrase leads to the actual quote, so Roberts isn't hiding anything. The fact remains that Rodriguez claims not to mention bombs, but does just that.

With your record on the Apollo hoax thread, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of making up quotes:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...nium&st=408

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had said that the numbers were off the cuff. Can you proceed with a more objective probability scenario? I'm having dinner now.

From what I've seen over the last few years, it seems like the first of any new type of terrorist attack has a good probability of succeeding, because the security forces are not looking out for it. As long as hi-jacks normally ended peacefully, it wasn't worth the effort of confiscating all passengers' box cutters or nail scissors. Once it has happened, the chances of a repeat attempt fall, but the chances of another new type remain high. Even then, some types of attack remain hard to stop because of the sheer impracticality of searching everyone carrying a bag/wearing shoes/etc on public transport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To have a case, you need to show that it would have been possible to hide a CD set-up taking months to prepare without any risk of the building staff noticing anything suspicious. All you have so far is an unqualified opinion.

No. You don't understand what is and what is not relevant to "have a case". There already IS a case - a case for a new, independent investigation. We have overwhelming evidence that three WTC buildings were brought down by CD. That demands a criminal investigation. The specific details of the crime - who was involved, how could the charges have been hidden, etc. - are borne out through the investigation.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

As no-one on your side of the argument seems able to agree on what an unconventional CD would actually involve, this does not help your case. All I can see is people picking on each little aspect that they don't understand and weaving some piece of speculation around it. The trouble is, these bits of speculation do not join together to make a consistent story. A typical example is you proposing very small HE charges that are easily hidden, while q24 goes for very big thermite charges to explain the molten cascade down WTC2. HE doesn't explain the cascade, large thermite charges can't be hidden under the spray-on insulation. Until the proponents of unconventional CD can agree on what unconventional CD actually is, my characterisation of it as anything that doesn't look like a conventional CD seems pretty accurate.

Again, most of the specific details of a crime - like 9/11 - can only be brought to light through an investigation. The evidence we have already warrants that investigation. You need to realize that.

I'm an aerospace engineer, but I had a general engineering education that included structures.

I never would have guessed that in a million years. Heh.

Er, it was your contention that there are no engineers speaking out, not mine. I said that most engineers accept the official story, you claimed that they only said that because they couldn't speak out: "Who's going to take a stand against the entire community, when it might cost him his career?" You are arguing with yourself here.

As to AE911Truth, if you check out the thread on that, you will see that they do not check if their members actually hold the qualifications they claim, and some of the statements those members make raise considerable doubts. The "disputing the official account" by this organisation is curiously based almost entirely on quoting the ususal conspiracist arguments rather than publishing technical rebuttals to the papers that explain the collapses.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...6598&st=150

Are you implying that some of them are lying about their credentials? Let's go to an extreme, and say 2/3 of them were lying. That would still mean ~100 members of ae911truth are qualified professionals who dispute the official account.

You have no relevant argument here.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weak-minded persons who proclaim that numerous U.S. government agencies, private companies, and other individuals killed all those people, are simply deluded. What was their goal? When will they achieve that goal?

These knee-jerk, j***-a** brained paranoids have intellectual "soft-spots" where light fails to penetrate.

Their credentials are meaningless, without indisputable examples, clear and proven beyond all doubt and artful lies.

Oh, of course. This is more like internet gamesmanship, than reality.

What an insult to all those who suffered and died.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that a group of fifteen or so terrorists entered the U.S. and lived underground for 3 to 5 years undetected with a mission to destroy WTC? Yes, it's possible. Is it likely? Probably not...

I just would like to add that 15 of the individuals portrayed as the terrorists became affiliated with Al Qaeda only in 1999-2000... after a CIA infiltration plan happened to commence in 1999. At any rate, this does not suggest they were the lifelong, diehard Al Qaeda fanatics that many people expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all.

You think American leaders commit crimes against their citizens (sacrifices)...for the benefit of the nation (?).

Yes, from the point of view of world leaders, people are a resource of their nation. What do you think you, or a few thousand others like you, are worth to your country? Are you indispensable or do you have a price? As an extreme example to prove the case, let’s say your country’s leaders had a choice… unlimited oil and guaranteed world pre-eminence for the next 100 years… or MID’s welfare. Tell me which they will take.

It's not oblivious. It simply acknowledges the mindset that creates such things. It's not evidence...it's imaginative, CT mind-set based wishful thinking.

The PNAC, their neoconservative agenda, the required “new Pearl Harbor” to further their plan, infiltration of the US government by these people and historical precedent is all imaginative, wishful thinking???????????? :hmm::wacko::lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, we're back to the argument that if you actually studied the collapses you're automatically biassed in favour of the government.

You are shifting the goalposts again.

How would you like it if I asked you for anti-"official" structural engineers, then objected to any who are members of AE911Truth because that showed a lack of independence??

Why would I be arguing that “if you actually studied the collapses you’re automatically biased in favour of the government”, when I have previously linked to 300+ construction professionals who, having studied the collapses, completely disagree with the official version? I gave the definition of “independent” as when I say…

“There are in fact more independent construction professionals who have spoken out against the ‘official’ story than are in favour of it.”

… or ask you to…

“provide your list of independent construction professionals who support the official fairytale”

… you for some reason continue referring to the NIST team. You do know NIST are an agency of the US Government and as such cannot be seen to be speaking out against that government, don’t you? At least that is policy of the British civil service and I am sure it is similar for the US: -

“Also, under regulations first adopted in 1954 and revised in 1984, members of the Senior Civil Service (the top management grades) are barred from holding office in a political party or
publicly expressing controversial political viewpoints
, while less senior civil servants at an intermediate (managerial) level must generally seek permission to participate in political activities. The most junior civil servants are permitted to participate in political activities, but must be politically neutral in the exercise of their duties.”

I would certainly consider implying that the WTC buildings were destroyed by anything other than airliners and/or fire is an extremely controversial political viewpoint. What value NIST’s ‘conclusion’ when it is preconceived and politically determined?

So come on, where are the “hundreds of thousands” of independent construction professionals who support the ‘official’ story, or at least 300+ rivalling the number of those who oppose it?

Hiding the charges under the spray-on insulation was the only way turbonium could think up for concealing a CD setup. Your thermite set-up couldn't conceivably be hidden in that manner, yet you support turbonium. You are being misleading.

My own assertion is that selective placement alone, whatever the charge type, is sufficient for concealment of the controlled demolition providing that WTC security and/or maintenance was overviewed by the ‘correct’ people. I still though support the idea that it may have been possible for linear shaped cutting charges to be concealed beneath the fireproofing.

As your idea of an "unconventional controlled demolition" can look like whatever you want it to, it is hardly any form of evidence. Sudden initiation isn't what happened, both towers showed bowing of the walls before collapse. All the other features you list are also predicted by the engineering analyses of a "natural" collapse.

It could not be predicted that the whole structures were about to enter into total and immediate near freefall collapses; the initial collapse movement was sudden. The minor bowing to the Towers’ perimeters does not indicate that ‘global’ collapse is about to ensue and in previous cases where partial collapse has occurred, this has been preceded by severe distortion of the entire collapse area.

As there is precedent for high-rise steel framed building controlled demolitions exhibiting sudden initiation, virtual symmetry, near freefall and complete collapses, yet no precedent for any other method causing these features, it appears more like your ‘natural’ collapse can look like whatever you want it to.

You can't have horizontal separation when the penthouse is sitting on the rest of the structure. When did you demonstrate that charges at high level could be fired seconds before the rest?

I was referring to the separation from its horizontal supports and the floors of the column that ran through the structure directly below the penthouse. Anyhow, I am not committed to the idea that the penthouse structure had to be destroyed before the rest. I believe it likely that the penthouse structure coming down seconds before the main collapse was not a design of the demolition but simply an effect of the initial high level charges used to weaken the building before the main charges caused complete collapse.

I demonstrated that charges at a high level may be fired seconds before the rest as in the case of the JL Hudson building. Also the

shows high level charges approximately 8 seconds prior to the main collapse.

Try office fire and heavy damage from an aircraft impact.

Sorry, I will rephrase - it is quite ridiculous that an office fire and random damage should imitate the results of that setup.

In going from baseline to severe case, NIST were not "moving further away", they were moving towards and beyond the actual impact.

Enough said.

You still do not grasp the significance of the bowing prediction. No-one else has managed to predict the bowing using any other set of circumstances, so the severe case is the only one that fits this aspect of the evidence. It fits it very well, not just predicting bowing as a phenomenon, but correctly predicting its location too.

The perimeter bowing was due primarily to a combination of gravity load transfer from the core and pull-in forces. So are you trying to say that an airliner impact and fire is the only possible event with the properties that would produce these factors? No, weakening and distortion of the core columns through demolition charges would produce these conditions.

You say the bowing predicted by NIST fits very well when in fact, through running the severe impact and fire cases and applying pull-in forces, the WTC1 model showed bowing of only 31 in. rather than the 55 in. observed in reality. NIST had already increased all variables to their maximum extremity and could not get a match. This indicates another factor must have caused the bowing – entirely likely the demolition scenario I mentioned above.

As for predicting the location of the bowing, if NIST had simply set the models on their merry way and bowing was predicted where observed as you imply, well that would have been quite impressive! Luckily, having read the reports, I know better than to take you at your word on these issues. In NIST’s own words: -

“The analysis of a single exterior face provided insight into the conditions that would result in the inward bowing of the south wall of WTC 1 and the east wall of WTC 2 observed in photographs.”

And further: -

“The exterior wall models were used to estimate the pull-in force magnitude and locations for each tower that would produce the observed bowing of the exterior wall.”

In other words, NIST observed the bowing in photographic evidence and then sought to provide the figures that would result in it. They saw bowing in the WTC1 south wall and so included pull-in forces precisely to that wall. This is not any sort of prediction but, as we have become accustomed to, a ‘fixing’ of the figures to support a preconceived conclusion.

There is no problem in engineering terms with accepting NIST's conclusion.

What exactly is NIST’s conclusion? All confirmed is that an increased impact situation from that observed, highly questionable fire models and ‘fixing’ of figures to preconceptions can initiate collapse in a simulation. I have no problem accepting that conclusion either. But seriously, I tend to concentrate on the reality of the situation, not NIST’s ‘twilight zone’ scenario.

You are not qualified to judge how plausible Gilsanz's theory is, and as he has a computational structural model and you don't, I know who I'd put money on.

You keep on about "preconceived conclusions", but if a building is damaged and catches fire, then collapses, the damage and fire are the obvious places to start. If a technical analysis starting from that damage and fire leads to a collapse, then you need to find extra evidence that a CD predicts and the "natural collapse" doesn't before you need to explore CD as a cause. You have yet to find any evidence in this category.

Gilsanz has not released his computer model of the WTC7 collapse. If it exists, for sure I would believe that, by completely removing the column below the penthouse, it simulated a kink. What I would be interested to see is how the model supposes this column was removed in the first place and further how this resulted in virtually symmetrical, near freefall, global collapse. For instance, in his FEMA paper, Gilsanz describes the fire causing collapse as having “a low probability of occurrence”, yet in his more recent paper he continually refers to the fires without question. Evidence and explanation of the cause and collapse are the vital points Gilsanz omits (basically everything then) and anyone with an enquiring mind is more than qualified to judge how comprehensive his theory is, or is not, without them.

Covert or false flag operations are by their very nature designed not to be obvious. Still, as you say, what seems ‘obvious’ is a good starting point. What irks is when a ‘starting point’ becomes a preconception, followed to the detriment of any other explanation. Why continue on a path that is proving impossible for the experts to reconcile without ‘fixing’ and ‘stretching’ the figures when there is an explanation – controlled demolition – that is supported by a host of evidence and easily answers every outstanding question.

He assumed a very large quantity of dust because it was the only thing he could think of to absorb the energy of the collapse. He gave no justification for picking such a large quantity.

Ross assumed that 10% of the concrete was pulverised and, judging by visual evidence of the large dust cloud during and after collapse, this appears reasonable. Incidentally, even if Ross had assumed 5% this would still have demonstrated an energy deficiency in continuing the collapse. Yes, this is an area where estimation is necessary, though it is more realistic than not allowing for the dust cloud at all, as with Bazant’s paper where it is inexplicably assumed that “all the impact forces go into the columns”.

If you cannot come up with a plausible alternative theory which you can agree on, only two mutually incompatible theories, why should I believe either?

Because in explaining the collapses, the controlled demolition has various possibilities, whilst the ‘official’ story has none.

Edited by Q24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quibble as much as you like, there is plenty of evidence of Rodriguez contradicting himself:

http://911stories.googlepages.com/idonotsa...hasn%27tchanged

Thanks for the link to Roberts' site again - I might have had trouble finding it the other 84 times you posted it.

Roberts appears to have paraphrased Rodriguez' statement,

No, Roberts appears to have deliberately fabricated a quote which Rodriguez never said.

but I don't see that he has altered its meaning.

You don't? Let's compare them. First, his actual quote...

"I always talk about explosion, not bombs - since I am not an explosives expert."

Now, the quote Roberts made up...

"I do not say there were bombs in the building."

Roberts' makes up a significantly different "claim" - that Rodriguez denies bombs were in the building.

It sure as hell does alter the meaning.

In any case, Roberts' link from the papaphrase leads to the actual quote, so Roberts isn't hiding anything.

Ah, yes, a truly honorable man, your Mr. Roberts is.

He makes up quotes and uses them to slander and smear Rodriguez. He's a lying, deceiving weasel.

With your record on the Apollo hoax thread, you are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of making up quotes:

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...nium&st=408

No, you're hardly in a position to take me on with this old claptrap, bub.

But if you'd like to try, be my guest.

Just don't have some kind of emotional breakdown when you finally realize you can't win what you started. Like someone else did after trying to smear me with it last month.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully, we now live in a world of computer simulations - where pigs can fly, chipmunks can speak fluent Russian, and massive steel columns offer as much resistance as balsa wood.

Edited by turbonium
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's time you showed some actual evidence for your argument, or concede that it has no validity. Personal opinions and wild leaps in logic do not cut it.

linked-image

Its interesting how, when the same demand as is quoted above is made of you, you employ your usual diversionary tactics of changing the subject, nitpicking over matters of semantics, or claiming that you are "gathering evidence to post at a later time" which seems to never come.

Perhaps you should start providing any kind actual hard evidence for any of your opinion-based ideas - here and elsewhere - before demanding others do the same.

Cz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. You don't understand what is and what is not relevant to "have a case". There already IS a case - a case for a new, independent investigation. We have overwhelming evidence that three WTC buildings were brought down by CD. That demands a criminal investigation. The specific details of the crime - who was involved, how could the charges have been hidden, etc. - are borne out through the investigation.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

Evidence? What evidence? All you have is opinions. If there was any actual evidence, of course there would be further investigation, the trouble is there is no evidence.

Again, most of the specific details of a crime - like 9/11 - can only be brought to light through an investigation. The evidence we have already warrants that investigation. You need to realize that.

Again, what evidence?

I never would have guessed that in a million years. Heh.

Of course you wouldn't. You have no qualifications, so you can't recognise when someone else does.

Are you implying that some of them are lying about their credentials? Let's go to an extreme, and say 2/3 of them were lying. That would still mean ~100 members of ae911truth are qualified professionals who dispute the official account.

You have no relevant argument here.

Badeskov did a check on four picked at random and found only one appeared to actually exist. I picked one at random and found no evidence that he was what he claimed to be. On these admittedly small samples, the proportion of liars looks more than 2/3. Note that their list doesn't include many structural engineers. I think the genuine structural engineers on that list number well below ten.

If they are genuine structural engineers, why don't they come up with technical reasons for their opinions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.